The hoax is the hoax

near unanimity ? (0.00 / 0)

Jay, there is no scientific concensus yet about man-made global warming.

I have found article after article, from climatologists, with no agenda of their own, telling us that global warming is political science, not true science.

I won't load up this blog with thousands of links, but here's a good place to start -

http://educate-yourself.org/lt...

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 17:21:23 PM UTC

There's no "consensus" (0.00 / 0)

on a lot of things. But consensus does not imply absolute agreement, either.

I could as easily say that there is no consensus about the existence of god, or evolution, and people still go to church.

There is no absolute consensus about the theory of gravity, and people still get in rockets and fly into space.

There is no absolute consensus about how best to treat cancer, yet people still get radiation and chemo.

In other words, just because some people have it in their heads to disagree with some facts or interpretations of them, doesn't mean we shouldn't take action. QUite the opposite, actually, when one looks at the reasons why some people are deniers. It lends more urgency to get something done.

---

by: JC @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 17:55:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Concensus or not... (0.00 / 0)

I am not going to argue whether or not global warming is happening. Even though it has stopped/slowed (for now). The only argument is how much WE are contributing. I will also not argue that... it can't be done in comments.

However, there is one thing that isn't debatable. The Cap & Trade plan, by 2035 would cost the average family of 4 over $6,000 per year. Even Obama said that electricity rates would "necessarily skyrocket". The $175/yr figure bantered about is only for the 1st year.

The real problem is that the estimates show that this plan would decrease the rising of the world's temperatures by 0.05 degress Celsius. (One TWENTIETH of a degree!) So, all that money, jobs moving overseas to countries without this type of restriction, and job losses caused by cutbacks, and the Cap & Trade would decrease (the increase) by 0.05. And that is IF China and others do not increase their CO2 emissions more than their current growth rate. That's doubtful.

Whether or not you agree with warming, this legislation is horribly expensive for such a small effect, IF it is implemented as is and IF other countries do not increase more than their current rate. France just got rid of thier Cap & Trade and Australia is rejecting it too. Yes, even France.

Jobs will go overseas and the estimates range from $3.8 to $6.9 TRILLION in lost economic activity through 2035. All for 1/20 of a degree.

//You mentioned that Exxon saif they believe in it. You need to watch the $$$... they came out and said that when the 'windfall' profits tax was being considered. Guess what... no tax. It was a great business decision.

---

by: shanester @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 18:20:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What? (0.00 / 0)

I could as easily say that there is no consensus about the existence of god, or evolution, and people still go to church.

That's an argument? It does seem like much of Global Warming is based on faith. I always thought that enlightened, elite thinkers are usually atheists because they want facts, not faith. Yet, faith seems to be what much of them are working on here.

There is no absolute consensus about the theory of gravity, and people still get in rockets and fly into space.

There may not be consensus on the theory of gravity, but there's no disputing it does exist. The problem is on HOW and WHY. There IS consensus that the globe WAS warming... at least up until 1998/1999. But it's the HOW and WHY! Temps have dropped since. In fact, take a look at the recently generated chart for 1900-2000 that shows the coorelation between temps and on one chart, CO2, and the other, sun activity. The difference is AMAZING. The sun has lowered it's activity for the past 10 years. Guess what? We stopped warming and temps have dropped, even though CO2 levels continued to rise.

There is no absolute consensus about how best to treat cancer, yet people still get radiation and chemo.

Um, yes, there is (in most cases). That'w why people get the treatments you just mentioned, at least now. In the future? There'll be something else.

In other words, just because some people have it in their heads to disagree with some facts or interpretations of them, doesn't mean we shouldn't take action.

People disagree with me that if I take $100 Billion in cold-hard cash and light it on fire, I will stop global warming. Well, that doesn't mean I shouldn't act, right? Of course it does! Why spend billions/trillions on something we're not sure will do much of anything. How about spending a FEW Billion studying it more. Studying the hell out of it. MUCH more - and without politics.. or politicians or businessmen that will profit from it.

When Al Gore left the VP office, he was worth north of $2 million. It's now estimated he worth more than $100 million.

He ALWAYS says that monies go to his non-profit. So? They pay him. And, that non-profit then sends funds to companies he has a financial interest in. Oil companies have an interest in blocking this (it'll hurt their business and their workers, although only in the US), and Al Gore will profit. The truth is, you cannot trust EITHER of them.
Blindly listening to Gore, is the same as other people blindly accepting surveys and 'facts' from Exxon or Conoco.

QUite the opposite, actually, when one looks at the reasons why some people are deniers. It lends more urgency to get something done.

It is also scary on why some people go along. Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, the first woman to get a PhD in Meteorology has finally come out against the man-made theory. (She believes that man's contribution (CO2) to actual warming is tiny.) It was only because she retired that she could finally speak out. She was too afraid to before. Now that she's retired, she can speak freely! THAT'S SCARY! This happens all of the time. Just read about the retribution. People in science fields were afraid to speak out. That means true debate has not happened! It should.

---

by: shanester @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 19:50:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shanester, you're quite the shyster (0.00 / 0)

1) Facts and faith are not mutually exclusive

2) " The sun has lowered it's activity". Really? News to me. Sunspots are at a cyclical low. But sunspot activity does not correlate with overall solar activity. The thermonuclear reactions inside the sun continue on as before. If you really believe that the sun is reducing its activity, then we have a far greater problem than global warming. You had better hope that the rapture arrives before the globe freezes up solid.

3) "Most cases" is an equivocation, which is different than the "absolute consensus" that I stated.

4) Spend a few billion more for studies? Let the deniers come forth with legislation to just such a thing, and we can talk. But I think that the billions already spent have turned up information worth taking action on. Feel free to disagree. Majorities rule, and elections have consequences.

5) What does Al Gore's net worth have to do with anything? Dick Cheney is worth far more than Gore was/is. At least Gore didn't start a war to enrich himself.

6) We didn't even get a chance to "blindly listen" to Cheney as he huddled in his undisclosed location to put together a national energy policy with all of his oil cronies. Not to mention how to start a war to funnel hundreds of billions to his own company, Halliburton, and other war contractors mercenaries.

7) Marohasy is just one person. And I don't know where you get that she is the first woman to get a PhD. in meteorology. My brother was studying meteorology under a woman PhD before Marohasy was out of kindergarten.

You'll have to try a little harder to put together a cogent argument. This was almost too easy...

---

by: JC @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 01:27:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Degree in Meterology? (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, she's a weatherman....CLIMATOLOGIST study climate change!!!

She works for the IPA...here's a little bit about who's funding her research...

"The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations. Those funders disclosed by the IPA to journalists and media organisations include:

   * Major mining companies - BHP-Billiton and Western Mining Corporation;
   * Pesticides/Genetically modified organisms: Monsanto; and
   * A range of other companies including communications company Telstra, Clough Engineering, Visy, and News Limited;
   * Tobacco companies - Philip Morris (Nahan) and British American Tobacco [5]
   * Oil and gas companies: Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon) and Shell [www.ips.org] and Woodside Petroleum; and fifteen major companies in the electricity industry; (Nahan 2)
   * Forestry: Gunns, the largest logging company in Tasmania; (Nahan 3)
   * Murray Irrigation Ltd - a major irrigation company contributed $40,000.[6]

In 2003, the Australian Government paid $50,000 to the Institute of Public Affairs to review the accountability of NGOs.[7]

However, financial support for the IPA has diminished over the seven years from 1995-96 when the IA received $1.4 million to just over $669,000 in 2001-2002 (figures unadjusted for inflation).

Even Rio Tinto, the conservative mining company, abandoned the IPA because of its strident advocacy against Aboriginal self-determination. [8]."

Sounds like a real good "think tank"....NOT!

---

by: big sage @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 22:49:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this comment thread is stupid--how about a wager to liven it up? (0.00 / 0)

"article after article"?  How about you pick just one, Eric, and post the citation.  I'll reply to that by debunking it, citing an authoritative source.  If I can't do it within a day or so (that's as often as I read this blog), I'll donate $5.00 to the charity of your choice.

My conditions: the article must be by a climatologist, i.e. someone with an advanced degree in climate-related science and one or more peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals.  Not a meteorologist, or an engineer, or 3rd Viscount, Monckton of Brenchley (look at that, Eric, I followed your link! :-) unless they are also a climatologist in addition to that other title (i.e. Christopher Monckton doesn't count, although if you post an article by him I'll gladly debunk that as well).

Seriously, given the nature of climate change consensus today, "climate change hoaxers" deserve to be taken just as seriously as "Obama birthers."

---

by: Duncan Idaho @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 01:42:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought that (0.00 / 0)

"climate change hoaxers" and "Obama birthers" were all the same people. Throw in some tea-bagging, too. Fringers looking for another loony position to add to their repertoire.

---

by: JC @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 04:42:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Forgot to mention... (0.00 / 0)

Greenpeace just came out against the bill. TODAY!
For the same reasons... it's horribly expensive and will do almost nothing to curb any warming.  

---

by: shanester @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 18:22:48 PM UTC

Straw Man Arguments (0.00 / 0)

You're using the same straw man arguments Obama uses.

All you need to know is that there's near unanimity that the climate is warming, and that human activity is contributing to the warming.

I don't know of anyone that disagrees with that. Even Inhofe knows that.

The disagreement comes about in HOW much HUMANS are contributing to the actual warming. Duh. Nobody says it isn't happening. Well... didn't happen, our temps are lower now. That's not to say they won't go up again, but it is fact that they have trended lower the past few years.

That's the same tired argument Obama says about everything... "Some say we should do nothing about the recession." What? I've never heard ANYONE say that... they just disagree with how much!

---

by: shanester @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 20:00:46 PM UTC

thanks, guys (1.00 / 1)

I can assure you that traders and speculators like me and the hedge fund I work for are looking forward to the creation of new multi-billion dollar futures and options contracts, where companies are forced to purchase and trade these things around in an illiquid market (and pay middlemen their cut, of course) in order to stay in business.

Yet another Obama Admin giveaway to the financial industry ... it's good to see that people on the left like Mr. Stevens are still completely snowed and serving as the useful idiot apologists for massive ripoffs of the middle class like this one.

---

by: AndrewBissell @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 05:41:46 AM UTC